patrick.net

Newly leaked documents reveal that billionaire George Soros bribed former Vice President Al Gore with millions of dollars in order to fabricate data about global warming.

According to a document published by DC Leaks, Soros used his Open Society Institute to pay Al Gore $10 million dollars per year in order to make Gore exaggerate claims about man-made climate change to the public.
http://yournewswire.com/george-soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-lie-about-global-warming/

#whatifthatsagoodthing

"Scientists project that in the absence of major reductions in burning of fossil fuels, the major source of carbon dioxide pollution, the greenhouse effect will result in an average global warming of 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century. "
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/20/us/draft-report-on-global-warming-foresees-environmental-havoc-in-us.html
This article was from 1988 before they started using, "anomolies from the 20th century mean".

So, in 1988 the "scientists" were expecting 3 to 8 degrees warming by 2050 if we don't give up industrialization. Now they say that if we don't give up our modern civilization the temp will go up 2 degrees by 2100 and it will be catastrophic.

I am not a shill for the oil company I just believe in science.

Record freezing temperatures across all continental US states. If we'll be facing a maunder minimum in the not so distant future the usual suspects will be begging for globull warming to come back. The end is nigh for the carbon credit extortion.

Record low temps in the SF bay area a few days ago. Most of the US is drenched in ice and snow and brutally cold temperatures. Plenty of rain coming down, no drought in sight. I'd like to see some data that has 2019 come in in the top 3, let alone top 5. It likely won't as we're heading towards colder pastures.

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/what-lies-ahead-grand-solar-minimum

But but leftoid globull warming!! Manbearpig! Manbearpig! Those freezing to death in the coming harsh winters may haunt the globull warmers in their afterlife. Stick a fork into globull warming, it's done.

"
Submitted by Luke Eastwood

We are all aware of the environnmental crisis that humanity (and all life on Earth) faces, characterised by the term ‘climate change’. Much of the current thinking in the scientific community is promoting the idea that our planet is rapidly warming due to excess CO2 (carbon dioxide) gas produced by humans in the last few centuries, and the last 70 years in particular.

While there is a very strong and hard to deny case to suggest that human activity is the main cause of environmental destruction, the premise that it is due primarily to CO2 emissions is beginning to look somewhat flawed. I am well aware that the previous sentence is likely to draw a lot of negative attention and criticism, with accusations of ‘climate denier’ being thrown at me. However, the situation is not that simple as to be a case of ‘global warming’ being the main influence or no influence at all.


The reality of the situation is complex. In my opinion the main drivers of the environmental crisis are many, but put in simple terms – destruction of wild habitats, pollution due to industrialisation, over-use of soils, over-population, erosion of soils leading to desertification or barren, infertile landscapes, monoculture agriculture and climate fluctuations. Notice that I did not use the term ‘climate change’ which in the current scientific norm implies warming.

While the planet has undoubtedly warmed up, in part due to human activity and CO2 production, the current popular thinking completely ignores historical CO2 levels beyond the last millennium and also the primary input on temperatures on this planet and all eight of the planets in this solar system. That input, although largely ignored at the moment, is of course our sun, which on average generates 3.8 x 1026 Joules (energy) per second. Human energy usage per year is around 5 x 1020 Joules, which is about 1 million times less than the Sun produces during 1 second! In fact, in the whole of human history we have used less energy that the Sun produces in that 1 second.

So, given the above, it stand to reason that the energy of the Sun must have a significant effect on the energy available on this planet and the heat energy (temperature) that is captured by it, as it rotates around the Sun. If we look at the history of Earth, particularly through the use of ice-core samples, we can see that the temperatures on our planet follow a very distinct pattern. On a macro level this can be observed as a huge cycle of glacials (ice-ages) and interglacials, with the ice ages lasting many times longer than the interglacial (warm) periods. We are currently in an interglacial, which began approximately 11,500 years ago and it is estimated that it will end some time within the next 50,000 years.

On a micro level, the Sun undergoes cycles of around 11 years known as the solar magnetic activity cycle, which has been studied and recorded by humans for approximately 400 years. During each cycle the number of sunspots peaks and falls in a recognisable pattern. However, this pattern of approx. 11 years is itself part of a much longer solar pattern of solar minimums and solar maximums. For instance the Medieval maximum (grand solar maximum) lasted from 1100-1250 (warm period) and the famous Maunder Minimum (grand solar minimum) lasted from 1645-1715 (cold period). The later was known as a mini ice age due the particularly drastic drop in global temperatures that affected crop-growth and led to bitter winters for a period of 70 years.



Scientists that study the sun are well aware of these periodic cycles both on the 11 year scale and on the larger scale of 70–100 years, known as the Gleissberg cycle. We have just finished a solar maximum cycle of around 70 years and are now heading into a both a new 11 year cycle and a new grand solar minimum cycle that will reach its lowest (coldest) point some time between 2030 and 2040. You don’t need to take my word for it – this has been confirmed by NASA and by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). NOAA predictions of sunspot and radio flux appears to show a ‘full-blown’ grand solar minimum (GSM) which will last from the late-2020s to at least the 2040s.

This means that the coming solar minimum is going to be not only a grand solar minimum, but perhaps the worst one since the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s. One would expert this to have been front-page news, but outside of the scientific community this information is virtually unheard of and little understood. One must ask – why is this the case? The simple answer to this question is that the solar predictions destroy the current scientific and cultural narrative of ‘Climate Change’ in the form of warming.


There will indeed be climate change in the coming decades, but for the next 10 to 40 years it is going to get colder, not warmer! The same thing will happen on the 7 other planets in this solar system, because the main factor affecting planetary temperatures is the activity of the Sun. Given that so much time, effort and money has been invested in ‘global warming’ as a premise for change in how human society is run, it is very much an “inconvenient truth” that is beginning to arrive just at the time when we are beginning to take more affirmative action on environmental issues.

The controversial news that the Earth (and all 7 other planets) will cool down in the next 10-40 years is politically highly inconvenient and that is why it is being kept quiet. Getting rid of fossil fuels, caring for our environment, lowering industrial output, ending industrial farming and reducing livestock, plus a gradual reduction in the human population are all excellent goals. Unfortunately the rationale for doing this, that has been sold to the public, is most likely entirely misguided. The net effect of this false premise may well be that environmentalists and main-stream public scientists will look like fools by the end of this decade. The cooling of planet Earth may well be seen as justification to abandon environmental concerns and reform of our economic systems, which would be a terrible tragedy.

In order to avoid this highly likely total embarrassment, world governments and the scientific community need to admit that the coming dip in solar energy output is going to lead to the cooling of our planet for at least 2 decades, possibly 4 or 5 or even 7 decades! This is not conspiracy, this is not mis-information or propaganda – this is proven, verifiable fact which can be validated by current solar observation, previous observation of sun cycles for 400 years and ice-core samples stretching back millions of years.

As someone who has been involved in the environmental movement since I was 16, when I joined a conservation group at college, I am very concerned about how this plays out. If the public feels that they have been lied to it may lead to a backlash and a disinterest in environmental issues. The reasons I outlined at the beginning of this article are more than sufficient for humanity to change its modus operandi. One does not need to concoct highly improbable narratives about the world ‘burning up’ within decades to justify environmental activism. In fact the coming GSM is likely to produce similar negative effects to predicted ‘global warming’, such as habitat loss, loss of farming land, a drop in food availability, migration, social unrest and possibly other problems too.

It is time that the whole ‘climate change’ theory was re-assessed and the known solar activity cycle as observed by NOAA and NASA taken into account. To fail to do so is total folly and only creates another problem, that will come back to haunt us if the grand solar minimum is ignored. We do need to take better care of our world and learn to live far more harmoniously within it, but we need to base our actions on good science and not on misleading or inaccurate information.
"

Of course, BlackRock is involved...

https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/take-action-financial-takeover-your-bank-account-blackrock-envestnet-yodlee-and-the-federal-reserve/

All of those Pseudo Scientist that was here on Patnet from 2007 - 2015 assuring us all that Global warming was real and we were stupid for not following the science.
They all have the intelligence level of a gold fish sandwich.

Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOidiyUnq8

Manbearpig!

Remember when this winter started with good rains in.the west all these articles by climate "scientists" and globahomo agitprop "news" corporations about how this will be a dry winter for the drought stricken west despite initial rains. Fuck you moron sell-outs, this will go down as one of the wettest winters in recent history in the west. Reservoirs should be full to the brim but I'm sure politicians made sure there is enough drainage and poor planning so they can keep promoting state of emergencies and fuck over their constituents.

Germany the latest country to have State Media embrace the "Dark Red for Sun" graphic motif.



The BBC started doing so a little while back...

I think whaling ships should still be hunted down and the crews fucking shot. But that doesn't excuse the Greentard bullshit train on the facts, either. Esp about Global Warming.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/10/28/the_myth_about_global_warming_killing_off_ocean_life_861672.html

It’s that the middle class doesn’t appreciate being preached to about it when they drive catalytic converters cars and BBQ once in a month in their backyard

China has 18% of the world population but the country accounts for 60% of CO2 emissions

What a bunch of assholes

I wonder what % of the 60% are US companies manufacturing there?

And, indeed, in one particular article we learned that there is a whole new category of mental illness stalking young people in particular, leading to despair, loneliness, and a sense of impending mortality. Its title: “What To Do With Climate Emotions?: "If the goal is to insure [sic] that the planet remains habitable, what is the right degree of panic, and how do you bear it?” It turns out, according to author Jia Tolentino, that the highly ideological "climate change" narrative has taken a serious toll on them, plunging them into a deep depression over the putative impending death of our planet.

Tolentino begins the piece with a smug little dig at conservatives. A young man named Tim Wehage grew up in South Florida. The family television was usually on Fox News. But in college he studied as a mechanical engineer and began learning climate science. The suggestion is, of course, if you're to the right of center, you're not smart enough to "follow the science." Of course the opposite is the truth -- constantly assaulted by Leftist narratives, we on the Right have generally had to seek out the truth ourselves to avoid falling into their traps.

Eventually Tim moved to Seattle for a job. He didn’t have a car. He walked a lot. He became a vegan. (One begins feeling sorry for his parents, who tried…) He visited a bunch of Second and Third World cities with bad air and learned that “orangutans were going extinct in Indonesia." He was horrified to learn that their habitat, among palm oil trees, had been cut down for food. When he got home, he spent too much time alone in his undecorated apartment, "dazed by grief." He took garbage bags with him to clean up the streets when he went for walks. He doom-scrolled the internet for climate stories and felt powerless.

Tim decided he needed help. He found the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, part of the growing field of therapy for people dealing with the emotional effects of the climate crisis. It connects patients with "climate aware" psychiatrists. But none of the therapists he contacted had room. Which is to say, these climate shrinks were too busy with others whose emotions were similarly wracked by the state of the planet. In Seattle, who would doubt it? Finally, Tim found someone. When he told her what his problem was, she assured him that “she talked about the climate crisis with most of her clients.” Tim cried tears of joy to know he was not alone.

To make a long story short, the therapist told Tim to stop scrolling Reddit for climate stories and to get off social media. He decorated his apartment. He started doing fun things in nature. He got over thinking it was all up to him to fix the planet and acknowledged that there were policies in place to deal with these issues. But Tolentino is not happy with Tim. She notes:

It may be impossible to seriously consider the reality of climate change for longer than ninety seconds without feeling depressed, angry, guilty, grief-stricken, or simply insane. The earth has warmed about 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times, and the damage is irreparable. Vast zones of hypoxic water expand in the oceans; wild bees, fireflies, and birds are disappearing; one study suggests that around half of trees currently alive will be dead in forty years.

"Should we change the subject before we get too despondent?” she asks. She doesn't think so. She describes her own "frenetic wheel spinning” and late-night hysteria about climate doom and her role as a consumer of things for her baby. “Every day, I felt like a self-serving piece of shit.”

Tolentino doesn't want therapy for her own climate emotions because she doesn’t want her panic dispelled. She is sure that the world is on fire. She cites one "climate aware" therapist named Leslie Davenport, who “pushes her clients to aim for a middle ground of sustainable distress.” Davenport wants people to be rational and yet work to solve the problem. Contain your distress, but be accountable. That’s as close to rational as the article comes.

The author does not think even this is enough. She wants to cling to her misery and hopelessness. She's skeptical that the "problem" even can be fixed, an idea echoed by two radical activist sisters in Manila she speaks to, who sneer at the Western idea that there is still time to avert the "climate crisis." Tolentino ends up favoring radical activism, because "tomorrow will not be like today."

There is an answer to this misery that the New Yorker and its hysterical writer do not consider. That would be: Tell people the truth. Yes, some animal habitats are being destroyed in the Third World. But no, the climate is not spiraling into death-inducing heat and flooding. The climate is changing, yes, as it always does. Perhaps some of that has to do with human activity -- smart people disagree. But whatever the case may be, there are reasonable things we can do. For instance, increasing our reliance on nuclear power, which is safe and sustainable, and has a fine track record in Western Europe. Meanwhile, transitioning from coal to natural gas has had a dramatic impact on America's carbon emissions over the past quarter century.

Moreover: stop repeating overwrought tales of doom to an impressionable young people. Do not let your contributors write things like, “The ice sheets keep melting, the permafrost keeps releasing its methane, and the future continues to harden into a psychic zone of suffering and dread. By mid-century, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced because of global warming." No wonder "a 2021 survey of Gen Z-ers [found that] fifty-six percent agreed that 'humanity is doomed'.” That's what they've been taught since early childhood! The blame for their depression falls squarely on their teachers and the media for propagating this deception. It's deeply irresponsible.

Refutations of this narrative are easily found, if you know where to look. Not, however, in the pages of the New Yorker. Read Drs. Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry. Read Alex Epstein or Bjorn Lomborg. Read other serious energy experts at (mostly conservative) think tanks and organizations. And don't stop reading The Pipeline, where we don't charge you a fortune to increase your fears and worries.

That will expose the real rationale for all of this: the desire by some to control resources for all. Those invested in the “green economy” of wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles want to justify banning their competitors for long-term profits. Rational answers also expose their cynicism. And they have the added advantage of being true.

https://the-pipeline.org/welcome-to-the-climate-nut-house/

https://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/a-simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-not-manmade/

Now that ClimateGate has buried the fraudulent hockey stick for good, it is easy to prove that global warming is not man-made: just compare the timing of our carbon dioxide emissions with the timing of global warming.

Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide

Emissions of carbon dioxide by humans are easy to estimate from our consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, and production of cement:



The vast bulk of human emissions occurred after 1945, during post-WWII industrialization. Half of all human consumption of fossil fuels and cement production has occurred since the mid 1970s.

Temperatures

Global temperature proxies (sediments, boreholes, pollen, oxygen-18, stalagmites, magnesium to calcium ratios, algae, cave formation, etc. over a wide geographical range) show a warming trend starting around 1700, with warming and cooling periods about the trend:



Compare the Timing

The timing is all wrong for the theory of manmade global warming:

Temperature increases started in 1700, and the underlying rate of increase has been roughly steady (though there have been warming and cooling fluctuations around the trend).

Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850, and really only took off after 1945.

If human emissions of carbon dioxide caused global warming, then there would be massive and accelerating global warming after 1945 and almost no global warming before 1945. Obviously this is not the case.

Conclusions

There is almost no relationship between human emissions and global temperature, so global warming is not mainly due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Something other than human emissions caused the global warming prior to 1850.

The steadiness of the underlying temperature trend since 1700 suggests that whatever caused the warming prior to 1850 is still causing warming, and that the effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide is relatively insignificant.

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1956637394238672970

https://x.com/MatthewWielicki/status/1892267659255042079

https://t.me/tribunalsandexecutions/524111

Weather modification as weapon, not gullible warming.



https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1357590595726118&set=a.200855111399678

MolotovCocktail says

Patrick says

especially if you purchase Al Gore carbon credits.

MolotovCocktail says

Welcome to knowing this 30 years ago just now.

WookieMan says

Welcome to knowing this 30 years ago just now.

The new study is from 30 years ago?

Dude, you have problems I think.

MolotovCocktail says

WookieMan says

Welcome to knowing this 30 years ago just now.

The new study is from 30 years ago?

Dude, you have problems I think.

Nope. Any thinking person knew Al Gore was full of shit. If you didn't, you're the idiot. FYI, 30 years ago. Time flies. Literally nothing you can deny with this comment. Try.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/nuclear-and-gas-can-be-called-green-eu-court-rules/

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate. ...

The majority of the local causes of rapid sea level rise (or drop) appear to be geologic. Tectonic motion explains sudden changes of sea level rise found in a few places.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/the-new-american-century-wednesday

Trump also pointed out that, while climate countries are killing their economies to shrink carbon footprints by deindustrializing, rising powers like China, Russia, and India basically do what they want, and since —duh— we all share the same air, the climate countries aren’t even any better off.

One might suspect that the West’s decline and the East’s rise, fueled by climate hysteria, is not completely accidental.

He spent quite a lot of time - as much or maybe a bit more than mass migration - on the whole GreenScam

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/climatism-as-an-oligarchic-strategy

The Communists eliminated the threat of the New Men entirely by nationalising everything, effectively replacing the “capitalist” elite with a permanent managerial class. This resulted in poor economic conditions, which is exactly what the managers wanted: If your economy is in the toilet there will be precious few New Men to worry about. The lesson is that settled oligarchies often fear economic growth as a destabilising factor. ...

This was a period in which West competed with alternate political and economic systems and tried to construct itself as the superior option. There was, in other words, external pressure on the oligarchs to behave, even if they did not always get the balance right.

That pressure has long since vanished. Since Merkel, our oligarchs have revived various doctrines from the political left to keep the New Men away from power. Increasingly, their goal is to squeeze the dreaded “capitalists” by undermining economic growth and thereby cutting off the supply of New Men at the source. Frequently they have overreached, targeting also farmers and small businessmen, as they come to fear everybody who is not an institutionally approved and promoted political actor. It is a light version of the Communist strategy from the Cold War. Our present oligarchs believe there are no viable political alternatives and they need no longer worry so much about comporting themselves well.

This is what I think climatism is for, fundamentally. It is one of the primary instruments used to sap the economy and forestall the rise of New Men. All of the apparent drawbacks of Net Zero policies are in fact features rather than bugs when seen from this perspective. Chasing industry overseas means that other people have to deal with the New Men; our oligarchs are free of them. In a fully developed climatist regime like that which prevails in the Federal Republic, many businesses cannot operate without special subventions, tax breaks or other subsidies, which allows the oligarchs and their institutional apparatus to control who rises and who falls. And naturally, reconstructing the entire energy sector via heavily subsidised Green initiatives allows the reigning oligarchs to choose ideologically aligned winners.

Socialism-lite turns out to be a very delicate balancing act. The oligarchs need to constrict the economy sufficiently to mute the rise and influence of rivals, but not so much that they cause economic collapse or specific catastrophes that would result in them being discredited and thrown out. They were managing this balance fairly well until the Ukraine war messed it up for them, and now their backs are against the wall. At the same time, they have turned their gaze towards the Atlantic with trepidation. They see in Trump’s election a vision of the dark future that awaits them if they let New Men like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and whoever else get out of hand. They’ve also noticed that key actors in the American tech sector played some role in Trump’s victory, and this is yet another reason for them to hate the whole world of technological innovation, from the internet in general to social media and large language models and everything in between. It is a very worrying source of New Men.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think our oligarchs sat down at a table somewhere and hashed out climatism to mess up the economy. The oligarchy is very large and diffuse, but like everybody else they are inclined to believe things that redound to their practical benefit. Climatism emerged via a confluence of interests, but the oligarchs’ enthusiasm was decisive. As an ideological system, however, it is beginning to break down. New Men, after all, are not the only problem an oligarchy may face, and the rising populist right has become a much more immediate threat not only in Germany, but across Europe. For this the oligarchs need new narratives, about the evil Putler abroad and his fifth-columnist sympathisers at home. They might even need a halfway functional economy, but I doubt any of them have yet thought that far ahead.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/06/sea-level-rise-hoax-exposed-the-disappearing-islands-that-refuse-to-disappear/

https://fackel.substack.com/p/the-quite-unknown-story-of-co2-measurements-f6b

To sum up this long quote: in the late 1820s, Nicolas Théodore de Saussure conducted more than 200 measurements of ambient carbon dioxide in and near Geneva, Switzerland. These yielded the following results:

437, 468, 460, 439, 489, 443, 454, 369, 360, 422, 395, 414, 415, 337, 322, 355, 315, 489; the average of these 18 data points is approx. 410 ppm.

Today, we stand at around 425 ppm. Isn’t that interesting?

You know what else is very interesting? That his (English) Wikipedia page does not mention these CO2 measurements at all ...